Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Jones "Died of Shame" controversy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. This was a difficult decision. I actually think that the arguments for "delete" somewhat outweigh the arguments for "keep", as many of the latter are not based in Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or are based on misunderstandings of them. Nevertheless, there are enough cogent, policy/guideline-based arguments on both sides that I do not think that any slight disparity could reasonably be described as a "consensus". JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


{{admin help}} WHY IS THIS DISCUSSION TAKING SO LONG TO CLOSE? WWGB (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because administrators are reluctant to spend a lot of time working through very long discussions with no clear picture emerging, rather than spending a similar amount of time and effort achieving more in other areas. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Jones "Died of Shame" controversy[edit]

Alan Jones "Died of Shame" controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just like some of the recent articles on individual words of phrases from speeches in a US political context, politics , this is a similar one from Australia. It seems every bit as unjustified; the place some of this information belongs is the article about Alan Jones. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

also as per WP:DIVERSE, additional overseas coverage in several sources CNN, guardian, NZherald. [2] International Business times. Uk telegraph [3], UK times [4], Xinhua news agency China [5], radio in Hong Kong [6]. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the section in the Alan Jones article is enough. --Salix (talk): 08:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:EVENT. Definately notable. This issue surpasses the notability of Jones himself. Djapa Owen (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major news event in Australia, with political implications. WWGB (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons stated above. I'd never hear about the guy if the incident hadn't happened. Lguipontes (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Just merge it into the main article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And merge into the person's bio. Like most other breakout "controversy" articles, this merits nothing more than a paragraph with a few supporting references. §FreeRangeFrog 22:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Everything that needs to be said about this is already in the main article. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
not a reason for deleting. see WP:BELONG. LibStar (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As that is not what the above person actually said in the slightest, WP:BELONG is a wholly irrelevant response. In the Wikipedia we routinely redirect/merge attempts to make articles out of criticism/controversy events, as having a standalone article tends to put undue weight on the criticism. Unless the event is of true national and critical notability and it does not make the parent article overly long, a paragraph or two in the parent is sufficient for matters such as this. Tarc (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Particularly as his comments are covered in full in the main article, I fail to see why we should have an article on what I would call a minor controversy that had no major effects, other than politicians lining up to say how dreadful his comments were. I don't believe this meets all aspects of WP:EVENT, particularly WP:EFFECT (no particular wide-ranging effects) and WP:PERSISTENCE (very little further analysis). Same information is found at the main Alan Jones article, and article title is not a plausible redirect, so no need for a merge. Several "keep" comments seem to be simply WP:ITSNOTABLE, and the claim that the incident surpasses Jones in notability is laughable. IgnorantArmies – 01:32, Wednesday November 21, 2012 (UTC)
He's not notable at all outside Australasia, just as I bet you hardly would say that radio comentators in languages other than English change something in the lives of average Australians, if you ever heard about them, like jokes about Fox News being not understood in Latin America (you can try to insult Globo instead in Brazil, for example, but if you have Americans in the crowd, they will go WTH?). President Julia, the history of her family and opposition politicians and politicized public figures being nasty in commenting it or using it as a weapon against her are of value in other regions of the world, even if minimal. Lguipontes (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The controversy goes beyond Jones. The leader of the opposition's echoing of the phrase prompted the prime minister's "I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man" speech. Doing justice to the controversy in Alan Jones (broadcaster) would be giving undue weight to elements not germane to Jones. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Anthonyhcole. While not a major political event, it deserves more than a para in a BLP. The ripples from Jones' private remarks spread far further than intended. --Pete (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, it's an important element of a bigger picture. HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the general superficiality of Australian political debate and somewhat trivialised discourse and the way it is reflected back from broadcasters is clearly notable in a long term understanding of Australian political history - perhaps not a global phenomenon, it si nevertheless a notable sign post of the degradation of public discourse SatuSuro 08:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not need a separate article as the parent article is not very long. It is about one speech which has not received any significant international coverage is thus is unlikely to be of great special interest to Wikioedia readers in any case. It also can easily volate UNDUE and WP:BLP. The !votes about it "being part of a bigger picture" do not make any policy arguments at all. And the case at hand requires us to look at policies. Collect (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
significant international coverage? Check the links with my !vote. Covered in major uk papers, and even CNN. LibStar (talk) 08:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's an unparallelled controversy and protest in terms of social media in Australia (his show is still radioactive in terms of major advertisers, and any whose ads appear are *still* getting deluged with sufficient complaints to withdraw), has had significant political fallout (with "the speech"), has spawned new organisations (witness the growth and power of Destroy the Joint) and has seriously damaged the influence of one of the formerly most powerful figures in Australian media. I'm inclined to wonder if the user who claimed there was "no particular wide-ranging effects" and "very little further analysis" has been living under a rock or has picked up a newspaper in the last two months. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:EVENT. Still being mentioned in the media so a keep in my opinion [7]. Sydneystriker (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we call this one? There is a fairly clear agreement on Keep and many more compelling arguments than on the delete side ("President Julia"? NPOV?) Djapa Owen (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, mea culpa. People from presidential republics often immediately associate the figure of the highest head of the governmental body with the title "President". I meant Prime Minister. Lguipontes (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - classic WP:NOT#NEWS (newsworthy event but with no enduring notability). And "died of shame controversy"? It needs a page move at the very least. I urge the closing admin to consider that many of the Keep !votes above cite rationales expressly excluded in WP:NOT. -Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hardly. There are a ton of strong arguments for keeping this article firmly rooted in policy, and on the other side, a few assertions that it somehow fits under WP:NOT (despite plenty of explanation that it does, in fact, have significant enduring notability, and no sensible explanation to the contrary). The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename - The controversy is indisputably notable because of its commercial effect and its direct parallels with the Rush Limbaugh affair, however the name sucks and I'd be keen to support a rename. 124.169.167.84 (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is not really a very positive comment IP, how about actually proposing a new name in stead of just sniping at the current one? Djapa Owen (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:EVENT with national coverage over an extended duration. The article itself could be improved of course. --Surturz (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - The !votes above cited EVENT as a reason to keep are failing to miss the key factors of determining an event's notability. A (mis)statement was the extent of the event -it has no enduring nature past that. There are reactions to do, and it clearly hurt Jones' program audience, but there's no apparent further fallout or actions that is affecting anyone else. Because nearly all the responses is negative in light of the statement, there is an immediate POV bias on this article that further makes it improper as a standalone article due to the lack of further impact. The current article on JOnes is sufficiently short to include any continued updates, though based on the timing and sources, outside of what has already hurt Jones' career, likely no more will be upcoming; including the incident within Jones' article helps to balance out the POV nature without ignore the fact that the event happened and people responded negatively to it. It would likely be different if he were a politician (much like the current Petronus scandal in the US), but in this case, he's more like our Howard Stern or Rush Limbaught - able to ruffle feathers but without little actual impact on the world at large and only ends up hurting themselves. Note that I do believe most of the important details from this page are already included in Jones' page, including the bulk of refs, and as this is a unlikely search target, deletion is proper instead of leaving behind a redirect. --MASEM (t) 07:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT#NEWS applies here, and Wikipedia isn't a political forum for stupid remarks said by politicians or news commentators unless it has a major impact later on, which none of the keep voters nor the sourcing shows here. Advertising been pulled from his show is not a major impact on a global scale. For admin note if the consensus here is to merge (which I see very little to merge), you can not merge an article and then delete it per our licensing guidelines, it needs to be redirected with the history kept. Secret account 07:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Advertising been pulled from his show is not a major impact on a global scale" it does not need to be on a global scale to be a WP article. it has been covered internationally. LibStar (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shirt58 (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To address the nomination rationale: it's not an individual words or phrase like Romnesia. "Romnesia" and the news flurry about the term did not bring unexpected world-wide attention to the 2012 US Presidential Election. The attention was already there. This series of events stopped being an otherwise unremarkable to-and-fro between a conservative media personality versus a liberal political figure when it gained world-wide, significant and on-going attention.
I would venture to suggest that, barring a miracle, Julia Gillard's time as Prime Minister may be popularly best remembered for this series of events, especially outside Australia. Except with rugby fans, I am sure Alan Jones is almost completely unknown outside Australia, even after this series of events. At present the article title would appear to the great majority of Wikipedia readers about someone called Alan Jones, who might have died of shame. For those reasons, if kept, the article name must be changed to something more appropriate.
--Shirt58 (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Are you suggesting renaming it to something like "Died of Shame" Controversy? Djapa Owen (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. If this were "Aussiepedia", or somesuch, "Jonesey—Gillo ding-dong stoush of September 2012" would be an appropriate article name that would pickle my wombat. To be honest, I can't think of a better article name. Jones—Gillard "Died of Shame" controversy of September 2012 would appear to still not pass Wikipedia:TITLE#Neutrality in article titles as it refers to two living people. "Died of Shame" Controversy (oops: hit Save page instead of Show preview) is in my opinion a good alternative. Readers would still need to click through to find the participants. Fine by me. They are people in a sparsely populated, politically and economically stable and mostly un-newsworthy minor middle power.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The controversy had long enough of a shelf life, became enough of a recurring theme, and enough subsequent developments that it warrants an article of its own in the way that most individual political gaffes do not.Circumspect (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was a brief event, which boils down to "radio broadcaster said something controversial affair, he was heavily criticised, said sorry, and some advertisers pulled out of his show". Ratings didn't significantly change. It will have no long-lasting impact, and the only person to significantly impacted was Alan Jones - briefly, before he gets new sponsors to replace the old. It can be better - and more properly - covered as part of Alan Jones. In regard to WP:EVENT, which is being heavily cited as a reason to keep the page, this won't have enduring historical importance, and the impact was just to Alan Jones, rather than being widespread. - Bilby (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Still making news, more than two months later. WWGB (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see a distinction between impact and coverage. It had coverage - that's clear - but as the event had no impact except in regard to Alan Jones, the best way of treating it seems to be as part of the Alan Jones article. This is an event about Alan Jones - what he said, how it impacted his sponsors, and how he was criticised for it - but I'd rather spin off articles only where their impact is broader than the person the event concerns. I'd also rather wait until there is evidence that it will have historic significance than create it now and assume that it will. - Bilby (talk) 10:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another Response: The died of shame speech led to Gillard's misogyny speech which was in turn commented upon by the leaders of the US, France and Denmark among others. That is impact, not just coverage. Djapa Owen (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did it? The article makes no mention of this, but yes, in the speech she made reference to it. That said, the speech was about Abbot and Slipper - I think it is trying to give this particular event a bit too much importance to say that it led to Gillard's speech. - Bilby (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The media attention on misogyny in public life has been absolutely unprecedented in recent memory since Jones's remarks were made. Gillard directly referenced them in her speech, it's pretty bleeding obvious that it was associated with her deciding to make that attack at that point in time, and the connection's been written about in reliable sources in droves. The argument that these remarks were unrelated to anything else that's occurred over the last two months just doesn't make sense unless you a) haven't read any Australian media in the last two months, or b) you're just ignoring it because some Wikipedians seem to have a bizarre objection to articles about controversial comments completely regardless of any fallout, which is not a deletion argument that's actually grounded in any Wikipedia policy. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)][reply]
That's cool - I have no hassles if you see things differently. But although yes, there has been an ongoing issue in the media about gender politics, and the Alan Jones comment fell into this, that's not the same things as saying that this particular incident had sufficient impact to warrant an article, and to suggest that the attention on sexism only came after Jones made the his comment is going to be impossible to justify. More generally, we seem inclined to readily create articles on relatively minor media controversies now, and it feels like part of the reason is so that we can write large amounts (in this case heavily critical) commentary on something that would be regarded as having undue weight in the biography itself. It seems to sidestep elements of BLP, by bringing heavy focus on one aspect of someone's life because, after all, it isn't actually in the article about them. That others may disagree with me is fine, though - but we do seem to be giving up a bit on NOTNEWS. - Bilby (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, do not delete. Well sourced but not for a standalone article. Keep. It is too soon to know if there will be significant ongoing significance. If not, if it turns out to be significant, then merge and redirect to the journalists biography. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merging any other content (I don't think there's much more to be merged, but...) is ok, but this is not a reasonable search term, so the redirect doesn't make sense. --MASEM (t) 23:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirects are cheap and don't hurt, and a redirect is a good place to keep the history that should be kept for its well referenced content and for the possibility of a future spin out. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You wrote: "[i]t is too soon to know if there will be significant ongoing significance". I would would argue that your keep !vote might possibly be a very good argument to delete: any speculation of notability is at yet the realms of WP:Crystal balls. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
YEa, this is completely counter to EVENT that says articles shouldn't be created until the significance can be determined. This is more of reason to keep in the Alan Jones article until, if it happens, becomes significant. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Redirect to Alan_Jones_(radio_broadcaster)#.22Died_of_shame.22_controversy. Note that it is not a notability concern, but a WP:UNDUE concern. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, more confident that the controversy should be redirected to the section. The controversy article contains only WP:Primary source material. The sources are primary sources with respect to the controversy and the reaction to it. There is no secondary source commentary. So I guess it does fail Wikipedia-notability. Keep the available for the benefit of reusing the sources, in the not-unlikely event that the cotnroversy proves to have long term significance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to re-read that page: none of the sources are primary sources, and there is extremely substantial commentary about it (both in the article, in this deletion discussion, and elsewhere). The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read it, and re-read it again. With respect to the controversy, the sources are primary sources. They comprehensive and honest reports of what people said. The sources do not reflect that source's authors opinion about what people said, or even about the original quote that sparked the controversy. The sources seem to be all news "reports", and none of them appear to be "stories". As such, they are all primary sources, repeating primary source material. This is what the front pages of respected newpapers do. Are there any sources from the middle of the paper, the editorial sections, or from books discussing the subject broadly, or in a wider context? I haven't read every reference, maybe there is? See WP:PSTS, particularly in respect to what distinguishes primary and secondary sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read the sources, both in the article and cited here. There have been hundreds of thousands of words of 'stories' (not 'this is what he said' reporting) about this, several of which I and others have linked to here (as a "this is what you would find it if you did a two-minute Google search because there's tonnes of it" not a "this is all there is"). There wouldn't be many Australian political subjects this year that had *more* commentary, and you're claiming that there's none in existence. Can you see why I and others are starting to get irritated with people who a) know nothing about the subject, and b) are determined to have strong opinions about it without making the most cursory effort to understand said subject? The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I belong to neither group (a) nor (b). Would you please help me by pointing me to two leading commentaries including wider context? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cited a New Yorker article elsewhere in this discussion that was a particular nice one. But really, it would help if those non-Australians !voting to delete would actually do even a cursory Google search. It is incredibly irritating to have people claiming that stuff that's been in the newspaper every second day for the last couple of months doesn't exist because they can't be bothered to use Google. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I cannot find it in this discussion, the article, or the article talk page. Note also: I predict that in time the redirect (for which I argue) will be reversed with the appearance of reputable secondary sources (most likely printed political biographies). The significance of the story will go beyond Jones himself. In the meantime, Masem is right. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may be on the talk page of this debate - I had found a few in response to Masem's queries, and some random user removed a lengthy conversation between Masem and myself to the talk page. The reputable secondary sources are published now. It's bizarre to insist on having a determined opinion on something, and insist repeatedly that something which does exist, in abundance, when you're completely ignorant of the subject and won't so much as Google it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Found it I think.
  • (1) the New Yorker. Close. This article contains opinion from its author. However, the controversy is only mentioned in one paragraph, where the only opinion of the author I glean is "We haven’t heard such a blistering condemnation since Mitt Romney conceded after Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a “slut” that it was “not the language I would have used.”". As such, this is too little by itself to justify a standalone article. I do take it as indicative of future suitable coverage.
  • (2) Sydney Morning Herald. No. This is a factually accurate report of facts and does not reveal the authors thinking. It is therefore not a secondary source.
  • (3) the Sydney Morning Herald again. No. This is a factually accurate report of facts and does not reveal the authors thinking. It is therefore not a secondary source.
  • (4) Herald Sun No. This is a factually accurate report of facts and does not reveal the authors thinking. It is therefore not a secondary source.
However, all these references belong in the Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) article until a spinout for the controversy is justified. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, even if merge would be a reasonable option, given the article's size, this appears as a legitimate spinout from Alan Jones (radio broadcaster). Cavarrone (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no size issue at Alan Jones, and Summary Style (among others) warns of spinning out material that is inheriently POV. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly notable controversy with ongoing coverage lasting beyond the initial news spike. --Cyclopiatalk 13:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename, as per Djapa Owen and The Drover's Wife. My first instinct, upon reading the discussion at ANI, and seeing that the article was nominated by one of our more outspoken inclusionists, was to come and close this discussion as a delete. However, after carefully reading the article, and seeing some of the discussion above, I have to agree with those who wish to keep the article. There is a lot of information here which is not in the Jones article, and adding it to his bio would be WP:UNDUE. However, I think that it needs to be in Wikipedia, under a better name; the current title is quite confusing. This is a case of a single event snowballing, but it's properly handled as a discussion of the event, not the people involved. Horologium (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

)

" in the era of "gotcha" politics everything is pounced on and inflated by one's opponents." It's not up to us to make subjective judgements on what media prefer to cover or not, here: our duty is to mirror, structure and condense their coverage, regardless of our personal and biased opinions on their job. --Cyclopiatalk 14:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it kinda is; when something becomes routine, it ceases to be notable. Take for example what the President and his family buy each other for Christmas, that sort of stupid banality is reported on ENDLESSLY around mid-December in the United States; so much so that if were one to go by the strict, technical definitions of WP:EVENT and the number of reliable sources that the topic appears in, could justify a List of 2012 Presidential Christmas Gifts article. But the fact that everything the President of the United States does or says is scrutinized, picked apart and analyzed makes it routine, and therefore not terribly notable or important. The same goes for politicians, who in today's political climate are virtually guaranteed to piss off 45-50% of the electorate no matter what they say. The things politicians say that other people don't like is no longer notable, unless it truly hits a read my lips critical mass. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc is correct: we can't create coverage where there is none, but we can distill and opt not to include coverage when it is not encyclopedically appropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are mixing the layman usage of "notable" with the technical, objective definition we want to use here. That it's "routine" to cover such stuff doesn't mean it is like the everyday weather. If there are WP:RS for the presidential Christmas gifts, the article could be absolutely appropriate, maybe as a whole List of Presidential Christmas Gifts more than a year-by-year one. "Encyclopedically appropriate", per se is a circular and subjective criteria, and as such nonsense: what is "encyclopedically appropriate" is whatever sources give wide coverage. --Cyclopiatalk 15:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "Christmas gift" bit was an example of the type of extremely idiotic article that one could create if one robotically, knee-jerkily followed the technical letter of the project's notability guidelines, without pouring in an ounce of common sense or thought to the matter. We're not fucking robots, Cyclopia, we're not simplistic regurgitators of what happens in the real world. We're editors. Like newspaper editors, we trim, rule in, rule out, and devise methods for what is print-worthy and what is detritus. If you can't see that, then you are an alarming, destructive, and over all net-negative presence in this project. Tarc (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense is not an objective criteria and it is hardly "sense", usually, so I don't care about it. We are not robots but we should be: if this encyclopedia is not algorithmically generated is only because we humans are still much better than computers to generate one. But our subjectivity is mostly a bug, not a feature. The point is that the "trim, rule in, rule out" is already made for us by the RS editors you speak about: we here should only care about condensing this already-digested information, taking care our presentation is WP:NPOV, etc. We already devised a method for "what is print-worthy and what is detritus", and it is our assessment of the coverage by sources by WP:N and related guidelines. I'm sorry you want a subjectivity-driven work, but this would be against the aim of a neutral and unbiased encyclopedia. --Cyclopiatalk 15:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is only an inclusion guideline that is overriden by several content policies; if content fails to meet these content guidelines, we don't include it even if WP:N is believed met. In this case we have an article that goes out of its way to be inheriently POV against Alan Jones, and puts undue weight on trying to find every possible negative statement against that. That's a huge problem. A brief summary (as we should be) of the incident should be mentioned, yes, since it basically appears to have killed his radio show, but we don't need to detail everything as a tertiary source. This is where Wikinews should be used, instead, to provide in-detail coverage that an encyclopedia simply can't. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
POV problems are dealt with editing and possibly renaming, not deletion, so it has no relevance in this discussion. Undue weight concerns applies to sections of content within articles, not to articles as a whole. If anything, the existence of this article allows to cover the incident in detail while avoiding undue weight concerns in the main bio. --Cyclopiatalk 16:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the current two-paragraph section in the Alan Jones article does cover the topic in about as non-POV as one can already, and includes nearly all the major points that are given here. And the level of detail there is actually appropriate for a tertiary work: Jones uttered a line that insulted others politically; he later regretted, but the damage was done, and his show was basically killed. Or to restart this: if I were to take this current article, trim out and clean up everything that is heavily POV and undue, as well as trimming out some of the full quotes, I would be left with a 2-3 paragraph article that basically is like what is already at Alan Jones. Thus there is no need for this article in light of this. Again, this being an event, the level of detail for an encyclopedia should be the long term implications, not the immediate reactions, which are more appropriate for Wikinews. As save for Jones' show and career there are no long term implications, the detail of coverage currently here is improper. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about "career being killed". Jones increased his market share and the show consequently earns even more revenue. This is like those "boycott McDonalds" campaigns you see from time to time. A minor ripple in sales, more than compensated by the publicity generated as new consumers tune in to see for themselves. This event is notable for the wider political ramifications, one of which has been to turn Parliament into an even more toxic place where harridans and spivs try to outshout each other. --Pete (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence in the present article of "wider political ramifications". Yes, there are statements from sitting politicans, but that's it, statements. The only "impact" that this article shows that can be demonstrated by sources is the impact on the show and the harm to Jones' reputation. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs some work, then. It's set up as an attack piece. Jones annoys a lot of people here, who are happy to use Wikipedia to retaliate. --Pete (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And that's the problem - this topic, by its nature, is NPOV because there's little favorable about the subject; every reaction, by its nature, will be negative. We can certainly write about it in off-handed, non-POV manner (that is, not introducing any language that POVs the issue one way or another) but by the very nature, the bulk of the material will still be POV-ish. Because we can't provide balanced coverage, and there's no lingering impacts, it should be trimmed to the important facts (Jones' screwed up, short term backlash, impact on his radio show) as already done at his article; a new topic is completely inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is total nonsense. Facts are not POV. If there is little favorable about the subject, that's not a POV problem, it's a reality issue. NPOV does not mean "equal doses of good and bad", it means "telling facts without putting subjective judgement". --Cyclopiatalk 18:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the problem here is that the number of "pile on" statements - yes which are all facts - pushes the POV-ness of the article. Yes, there is no way to cover this issue (somewhere) that provides completely balanced viewpoints because its clear that the bulk of sourcing put Jones in a bad light, and we can't change that. But we can, as a tertiary source, recognize that we can easily summarize that "A lot of people resented Jones for that remark" without quoting or citing every single such source. For example, in the present article, the several quotes under "Reaction" are excessive; the only quote that is immediately needed is from the person the faux pas was made at: Julia Gillard. The rest are obvious reaction statements, that can be easily summarized that "Several members of Parliment were critical of Jones' statement." We can certainly inline source them all, but the excessive quoting is just piling on what is already a bad situation. As noted, this is what the present two-paragraph section in Jones' personal article already does without pushing any more POV than the topic already needs. --MASEM (t) 18:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't work, because summarising one of the dominant Australian political stories of 2012 as merely "A lot of people resented Jones for that remark" is both an extremely original (and creative) reading of the sources, and an extremely biased account of them. Anyone who read an account of this affair that was as brief as you account would assume that either a) the author was either ignorant/non-Australian, or b) was a particularly ardent Jones fan. As such, the NPOV argument doesn't really fly in the least. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except that no one has explained or included anything to show how this extends as a "dominant Australian political story", when all that has happened is one vocal radio show host said a major faux pas that has come back to harm his career. I'm not seeing anything in this discussion or that article to suggest that anyone else's political future is going to be changed due to this. It is, as exampled above, trying to make a huge deal of Romney's "binder full of women" - it had very short term repercussions, but didn't likely influence the election and certainly a long-forgotten element of the debates. This goes back to understanding that this clearly (as show and with whatever demonstration there is) that this does not met the notability set by EVENT and thus shouldn't be an article in the first place. I'd love to be wrong that there's lots of reliable source showing political fallout that extends past Jones due to this statement, but that's simply not being shown by those that want to keep this. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC) (missed signature)[reply]
The political ripples extended into Parliament, where Prime Minister Julia Gillard gave Opposition Leader Tony Abbott a spray. The resulting video went around the world, and put the (female) DOL on the attack, while Abbott has suffered a drop in popularity amongst female voters. Given the knife-edge nature of Australian federal politics at the moment, this has a significance perhaps not visible to non-Australians. Our article should explain this more fully. --Pete (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's very telling that many of the delete !votes seem to be coming from non-Australian users, who seem to be drawing comparisons to American issues that don't really fit in the situation. They may be more susceptible to arguing because the current state of the article isn't what it could be, than people who actually have access to Australian media. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this is what is happening, please provide the sources that link Jones' statement to this politically charged situation. The connection that is being argued is fundamentally synthetic - it may be true but there's no reliable sourcing that makes the connection and thus is OR. But even then, this then makes this controversy one drop in the bucket of the larger political machine if they were already on a knife's edge, making the reason to keep this article even less necessary. And as to sourcing, Australia is certainly not an Internet backwater as some other countries, so it should be easy to find such sources that make all these necessary connections. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the New Yorker, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Sydney Morning Herald again, and the Herald Sun enough? That took me five minutes on Google. Again, equating this to "binders full of women" (which, I note, is not presently proposed for deletion even though it's less notable than this) relies on either a) being ignorant of Australian media and politics, or b) living under a rock. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains multiple sources making the connection. Perhaps editors should read the thing before !voting on whether to delete or not. --Pete (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The articles are helpful, but again suggest there is a larger topic that emphasizes this current discourse in the AU gov't and would de-emphize the negative POV-ness of this on Jones. They read as that Jones tipped something that was already teetering, so the blame cannot go on him for the political ramifications; he is certainly a factor in that now, but not the igniter. (That's how I'm reading them, I may be wrong). If that is the case, this article is still inappropriate, though one could then argue (assuming this broader situation doesn't already have an article) this can be moved to a name that properly reflects the larger discourse currently afoot; the direct impact on Jones would be well-summarized by the current two-paragraph section already on his bio article. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that argument is that he *was* the igniter - he made the speech, the media attention on misogyny in public life exploded, it involved the government, and then it continued to blow up from there. This whole political storm did not exist before Jones made this speech, and you'd be struggling to find an article on the topic in a reliable source even immediately prior to the Jones furore. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking in trying to understand because it is not made clear in these articles (there's a presumption the reader knows of events before), but as I note, I get the impression that something was about to go - political hostiles were already there before Jones' misquote. Is this a prelude to an election or a political appointment? Is there some law that is about to be passed/introduced/debated that this discussion is influencing? The reason I ask is that if this is not connected to any major gov't/political event, it feels simply like the usual posturing and politicking that happens in any gov't, and covering it in any depth without knowing where it's going is presuming notability that is yet established, making this information better suited on Wikinews (barring the influence on Jones' life). If this is connected to a larger issue, then it makes to include this discussion as part of this context because as it stands right now, despite being heavily in the news, it reads as if some tempers were flared based on a misstatement from out of nowhere. And maybe that's the problem. We're lacking context here (particularly those of us not in the US). The fact that we have politicians using Jones' words to attack their opponents means there's bad blood already there but this needs to be explained. I'm thinking that there's still a way that this incident can be covered on WP, but I am pretty confident that an article under this current title is not the right way. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that this article could be a lot better written in terms of political context and explaining the issue to non-Australians, but this discussion is about the notability of the subject, not whether it could be better written. In answer to your questions, there is a minority government in Australia, which means there has been intense political conflict ever since 2010, and an election due next year. I can readily accept that some of these are not notable (witness today's flash-in-the-pan AWU scandal, which should probably be deleted), but this one is not one of them. I think folding this into a broader article doesn't really work, in that it (and Gillard's speech, which may well go down as the thing she's most remembered for as PM) are separate but related notable events. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've just established how to help this article (to some degree), because explaining this is pre-election year posturing involving the minority government (which does happen here) is a critical element of this. That sheds light as to why a mis-state flared off numerous people. This would certainly help establish the notability/importance of this mess a bit better, though I still think there might be a better broader article though I would have to review the American elections articles to see how far back such things happen. But we're getting better here. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or redirect if there is an appropriate target. An Australian version of "Binders full of women", puffing up a controversial line from a speech into an article. Feathers are ruffled for a short time, then the drive-by media moves on to the next target. We can't keep making articles on this sort of thing; in the era of "gotcha" politics everything is pounced on and inflated by one's opponents. Tarc (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete anything of import can be covered in the Jones article -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
not a reason for deletion, see WP:BELONG. LibStar (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As that is not what the above person actually said in the slightest, WP:BELONG is a wholly irrelevant response. In the Wikipedia we routinely redirect/merge attempts to make articles out of criticism/controversy events, as having a standalone article tends to put undue weight on the criticism. Unless the event is of true national and critical notability and it does not make the parent article overly long, a paragraph or two in the parent is sufficient for matters such as this. Tarc (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Alan Jones (radio broadcaster). - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Alan Jones (radio broadcaster). Important as it may be, it really is mainly an incident in his life. I'd hate to see WP have an article about every "controversy" concerning statements by politicians and news people around the world.Borock (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really wish people would a) read the article, and b) read the above discussions before !voting. The claim that this is merely an "incident in his life" has been rebutted at length with reliable sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No one has rebutted anything of the sort, as what you claim is quite false. A public personality says something that people who alreayd don't like him *gasp* don't like. Whoop-de-fucking-do, it happens day in and day out. With Jones in particular, he's said a lot of things that people complain about; this is simply the most recent. Tarc (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this is already covered adequately in the Jones and Gillard articles. It really is just one event and as bad as the comments are they don't rise to the level of requiring their own article. AIRcorn (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UNDUE, especially since this comes under WP:BLP. There are already two paragraphs in the main article, so there is no real need to merge. StAnselm (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE refers only to the balance of content within a single article, not to the existence of article. --Cyclopiatalk 22:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over at Meta there has been a recent discussion to close Wikinews, as that project is not very successfull. The proposal failed. One reason given for the lack of success, by Wikinews editors, was that Wikipedia does the news better as there are many more editors and that WP:NOT#NEWS is too often not applied. I think this is a good example. The controversy is notable, yes. So it is covered in a fair sized paragraph on the article on Jones. This article here at AfD is covering the details that should have been covered at Wikinews. We really should be leaving Wikinews to cover news and not jumping in at wikipedia on recent events to write long newsy articles. We should let the dust settle to see what later sources say about the event. I gave a !vote above. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was unaware of this "event" until coming to this AfD. In addition to agreeing with several of the NOT policies stated previously, I think we are suffering from RECENTISM here; there is no reason not to summarize this after some historically objective period and place it in an appropriate subsection of the Alan Jones article. Why it's "notable" now is because it's ongoing, and this is exactly why WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a newsfeed. MSJapan (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would not call DGG 'outspoken' as an 'inclusionist'. Also, I can't tell from the sources that this will be more than one event. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Political and social event in Australia that meets WP:EVENT and WP:SIGCOV. -- MST☆R (Merry Christmas!) 10:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are seasoned Australian editors from both sides of politics arguing "keep" here. All of the "delete" voters [that] I know are from the USA and UK. With respect, they don't get it. This is a very notable controversy, and all that should be said about it can't possibly be said in Allan Jones without giving the controversy undue weight in that article. (I voted earlier.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC) Ellipsis added 14:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. I'm from Melbourne. I still think this article is writing news and not an encyclopedia. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do I know you? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I'm being ambiguous. I've added "[that]" to my comment for clarity. 14:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's just a case of switching the News on TV or reading the newspaper - because the media has been banging on about it for quite some time here in Melbourne. -- MST☆R (Merry Christmas!) 03:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except that given the coverage that this article (the one being AFD'd), the present two paragraph summary at Jones' article is completely in line with that and certainly far from undue; much of what is in this article is quotes without context, which should be stripped anyway. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cavarrone and Anthonyhcole. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or reduced merge to Alan Jones. I agree that as a general principle controversies related to individuals should be treated (at appropriate, often reduced length) in their article, so as to avoid newspaperism and recentism as well as strawman/UNDUE NPOV issues.  Sandstein  10:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what you're referring to with "straw man"? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant WP:COATRACK. Not necessarily in this case, but in general if we dedicate subarticles to specific negative aspects of a person's life there is a risk that they become merely vehicles for disparagement, and even if written neutrally the mere existence of such articles can result in an undue focus of one negative aspect of a person's life. It is normally easier to find the balance that neutrality requires if such aspects are covered in the context of the person's general biography. An exception could be made for people who are so notable that they have other subarticles already, such as U.S. presidents.  Sandstein  16:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Jones article. Looks notable enough to merit mention in his bio, but not as a stand alone article. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikinews with a soft redirect. The subject is notable, and verifiable, but it is simply a news story, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Sources do not allow putting this in a historic context yet, and as such this is beyond our project's scope. However, I cannot agree that the content should be deleted outright. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 07:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTNEWS, trivia, more than adequately covered in the main article. "Someone says something controversial, everyone runs round in circles shouting Shock, horror!!! and doing their best to fan the flames" is absolutely not what an encyclopedia is here for. Also, Sandstein three above has a good point. JohnCD (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Jones_%22Died_of_Shame%22_controversy&oldid=1140141291"